LAWRENCE J. SPEIGEL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF NEREIDA GARCIA, A MINOR, DECEASED, ON BEHALF OF CARLOS GARCIA AND JESUS GARCIA AND THE ESTATES OF NEREIDA GARCIA AND ILEANA GARCIA, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, AND FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
LAWRENCE J. SPEIGEL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF NEREIDA GARCIA, A MINOR, DECEASED, ON BEHALF OF CARLOS GARCIA AND JESUS GARCIA AND THE ESTATES OF NEREIDA GARCIA AND ILEANA GARCIA, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, AND FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
341 So. 2d 832
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1977)
Caution
Cited by 22 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants in an action wherein the defendants were charged with negligently maintaining a light and telephone pole so near the highway that plaintiffs’ driver was fatally injured when her automobile collided with the pole.
In his summary final judgment, the trial judge set forth the following, in pertinent part:
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that a utility company is under no obligation to guard against extraordinary exigencies created when a vehicle leaves the traveled portion of a roadway out of control. Oram v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company [132 N.J.Super. 491] 334 A. 2d 343 (N.J.1975). The uncontradicted evidence in this case clearly shows that the plaintiff vehicle had left the roadway prior to impact with the utility pole involved herein. Summary Final Judgment therefore be and the same hereby is granted in favor of the defendants, and the defendants shall go hence without day.”
After careful consideration of the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel we have concluded that the trial judge was correct in entering the judgment appealed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lively, 465 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…, which resulted in this opinion. The basis for the rehearing en banc was that the panel opinion in effect announced a rule of law which conflicted with a rule previously announced by this Court in Speigel v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 341 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). . In fact, the sectional chart introduced into evidence as the plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 contains the following language: "CAUTION, This chart is primarily designed for VFR navigational purposes and does not purport to indicate…1 / 2
-
Bernadette Louise Anthony v. The Jacksonville Transp. Auth., 383 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…ependent intervening cause, and that the risk of a vehicle leaving the roadway created “extraordinary exigencies” beyond their liability as a matter of law. The latter conclusion is supported to some extent by Speigel v. Southern Bell Telephone Co., 341 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977), denying liability to occupants of a vehicle which collided with a telephone pole near the road. Without elaboration of distinctions between duty toward persons seated on bus stop benches and those in other vehicles, I believe th…
-
Middlethon v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 400 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…te pole near the roadway where the undisputed evidence shows the vehicle had collided with another vehicle, veered off the roadway and onto the sidewalk, then struck utility pole. See, e. g., Speigel v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 341 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Order dismissing third party complaint with prejudice is affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence